[¶1]
In 2012, a complaint for residential foreclosure filed by
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) against
Patricia W. Deschaine and Paul J. Deschaine was dismissed
with prejudice because the parties failed to comply with the
court's pretrial order. Fannie Mae did not seek
post-judgment or appellate relief, and so the judgment became
final. The following year, Fannie Mae filed a second
complaint for foreclosure involving the same property, based
on the same note and mortgage, and against the same
mortgagors. The Superior Court (Penobscot County,
Anderson, J.) ultimately granted the Deschaines'
motion for summary judgment on Fannie Mae's complaint and
on their counterclaims to quiet title and for a declaratory
judgment, and denied Fannie Mae's cross-motion for
summary judgment on its complaint. Applying our decision in
Johnson v. Samson Construction Co., the court
concluded that this second foreclosure action is barred as a
matter of law by the judgment dismissing with prejudice the
earlier foreclosure action. 1997 ME 220, ¶ 8, 704 A.2d
866. On this appeal by Fannie Mae, we conclude that the court
correctly determined that this second foreclosure claim is
precluded by principles of res judicata, and we affirm the
judgment.[1]

I.
BACKGROUND

[¶2]
The summary judgment record contains the following facts,
which are not in dispute. See Harlor v. Arnica Mut. Ins.
Co.,2016 ME 161, ¶ 7, 150A.3d793.

[¶3]
In October 2004, the Deschaines executed a promissory note in
favor of First Horizon Home Loan Corporation in the principal
amount of $127, 920. As security for the note, the Deschaines
also executed a mortgage on residential property located in
Lincoln in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. (MERS), as "nominee" for First
Horizon.[2] Fannie Mae eventually acquired the note
endorsed in its favor. MERS purported to assign the mortgage
to Fannie Mae in June 2011, but because MERS possessed only
the right to record the mortgage, the assignment conveyed
nothing more than that right. See Bank of Am., N.A. v.
Greenleaf,2014 ME 89, ¶¶ 15-16, 96A.3d 700;
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Saunders,2010 ME 79, ¶¶9-ll, 2A.3d289.

[¶4]
Paragraph 7(C) of the note and Paragraph 22 of the mortgage
contain acceleration clauses, which provide that if the
borrower fails to satisfy an obligation under either
instrument and fails to timely cure the default after being
notified of it, the lender may require "immediate
payment in full" of the amount then remaining unpaid
under the loan documents-including the total balance of
principal and interest under the note and any additional fees
and charges allowed by the note and mortgage.

[¶5]
Additionally, Paragraph 19 of the mortgage is a reinstatement
provision, stating that "even if [the l]ender has
required immediate payment in full, [the borrower] may have
the right to have enforcement of [the mortgage]
discontinued" if, among other things, the borrower
"pay[s] to [the l]ender the full amount that then would
be due under [the mortgage] and the [n]ote as if immediate
payment in full had never been required" before the
earliest of the date a foreclosure judgment is issued, five
days prior to the sale of the property, or "such other
period as [a]pplicable [l]aw might specify for the
termination of [the] right to reinstate." Paragraph 19
further provides that if the borrower exercises her right of
reinstatement, "the [n]ote and this [s]ecurity
[i]nstrument will remain in full effect as if immediate
payment in full had never been required."

[¶6]
In September 2011, Fannie Mae issued to the Deschaines a
notice of default and right to cure because, among other
things, they had not made any monthly payments on the note
since January 2011. The Deschaines failed to pay the stated
amount due-$7, 719.33-by the date specified in the notice. As
a result, in December 2011 Fannie Mae filed a foreclosure
complaint in the District Court (Lincoln). In its complaint,
Fannie Mae alleged, "[I]n accordance with the terms of
the [l]oan [d]ocuments, [Fannie Mae] has declared the entire
outstanding principal amount, accrued interest thereon, and
all other sums due under the [l]oan [d]ocuments to be
presently due and payable." Specifically, Fannie Mae
alleged that the amount due included a principal balance of
$122, 712.93, which, together with accrued interest, fees,
and other charges, resulted in a total amount due of $131,
944.56.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&para;7]
In June 2012, the court [Stitham, J.) issued a trial
management order stating that neither party had complied with
an earlier order that had established a deadline for the
parties to exchange witness and exhibit lists, and warning
the parties that sanctions would be imposed if they did not
comply with a revised deadline. See M.R. Civ. P.
l6A(a), (d) (authorizing a court to dismiss an action with
prejudice for a party's failure to comply with a pretrial
order). The following month, the court issued a judgment
stating that there had been "no filings by either party,
" and dismissed Fannie Mae's foreclosure complaint
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.